ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MD JAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and perused the lower court records. Compensation Case No. 94 of 1994 was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are parents, brothers and sister of the deceased Sabir Khan. On 8.4.1994, while going to purchase motor spares from the workshop 'Jayanta Motor Works' he was dashed by a truck (MBM 3099) coming from opposite direction and died. He was 18 years old and was working as motor mechanic in the aforesaid workshop and was earning Rs. 1,500 per month. By impugned judgment and award, 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, assessed a sum of Rs. 1,68,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum payable by insurance company to the claimants.

(2.) It was established that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. In the present appeal, filed under section 173 of the Act, appellant insurance company has mainly raised question as to whether it was responsible to indemnify the owner's liability to pay compensation under the Act. According to it, driver of the truck involved in the accident was not holding valid driving licence. In its written statement filed by insurance company in the claim case on 29.7.1995, it was stated that claimants must produce or get the driving licence of the truck driver, besides other papers produced, failing which it would be presumed that vehicle was being driven against the Act and Rules as well as terms of the insurance policy. On 24.11.1995, insurance company filed a petition for a direction to the claimants to produce the said driving licence and if they fail to produce the same, it may be presumed that vehicle was being driven against Rules and terms of the insurance policy and the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation, on which no order was passed. Further in the rejoinder dated 16.5.1996 to the petition filed by claimants on 18.4.96, insurance company stated that in spite of its petition dated 24.11.1995 claimants failed to produce the driving licence. In the meantime insurance company deputed a surveyor to investigate and submit a report regarding verification of the driving licence in question, which was not found to be in order. According to records of District Transport Officer, Ranchi, it was found that driver Sukra Oraon, in his driving licence No. 1180 of 1987, issued by D.T.O., Ranchi, was allowed to drive a light motor vehicle only, and so, he was not authorised to drive heavy public goods vehicle. Relevant term of the insurance policy was, therefore, violated and the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation.

(3.) In the claim case, owner of the vehicle appeared, but neither filed any written statement nor contested the case. On behalf of claimants two witnesses were examined, who were also cross-examined by insurance company.